Holmes HAP706-NU

Holmes HAP706-NU Feature Scores

Explore all 39 feature scores for Holmes HAP706-NU, organized into pros and cons.

Scores by Feature

Summary

39 reviewed features
  • Very positive 4.5-5.0
    12 (31%)
  • Positive 3.5-4.4
    14 (36%)
  • Neutral 2.5-3.4
    6 (15%)
  • Negative 1.5-2.4
    6 (15%)
  • Very negative below 1.5
    1 (3%)

Pros

Sort
  • 4.8
    22 reviews strong consensus
    allergen reduction: 4.8, 22 reviews, strong consensus
    Allergy relief is the strongest recurring theme. Many reviewers describe less sneezing, clearer breathing, fewer flare-ups, or easier nights after using it.
  • 4.9
    13 reviews strong consensus
    breathing relief: 4.9, 13 reviews, strong consensus
    Breathing relief is repeatedly praised, especially for asthma, sinus issues, wildfire smoke, and allergy-related stuffiness. Several buyers describe feeling a difference quickly.
  • 4.8
    10 reviews strong consensus
    sleep quality benefit: 4.8, 10 reviews, strong consensus
    Sleep use is common and often positive. Many like the white noise and better breathing at night, although noisy or pitch-changing units can ruin bedroom use.
  • 4.5
    15 reviews low consensus
    value for money: 4.5, 15 reviews, low consensus
    Value is strong when the unit works: buyers like the low price, small-room performance, and white-noise benefits. The value falls apart for owners facing early failure or costly filters.
  • 4.6
    11 reviews strong consensus
    dust removal: 4.6, 11 reviews, strong consensus
    Dust removal is a major strength in many bedrooms, offices, and small rooms. Reviewers often noticed less surface dust or visible debris gathering in the filter.
  • 4.2
    23 reviews low consensus
    air purification performance: 4.2, 23 reviews, low consensus
    Most owners say the purifier makes rooms feel fresher and noticeably cleaner, with several calling out quick improvements in stale or dusty spaces. A smaller group felt the weak fan limited how much air it could actually clean.
  • 4.5
    6 reviews strong consensus
    pet dander removal: 4.5, 6 reviews, strong consensus
    Pet dander feedback is positive overall, especially in cat households where allergy symptoms eased. A few reviews describe meaningful relief even when pets remained in the home.
  • 4.1
    13 reviews low consensus
    overall satisfaction: 4.1, 13 reviews, low consensus
    Overall satisfaction leans positive because many owners felt real relief and bought more units. Serious reliability and safety complaints keep the consensus from being uniformly enthusiastic.
  • 4.8
    4 reviews strong consensus
    ease of use: 4.8, 4 reviews, strong consensus
    Ease of use is a quiet strength. Reviewers liked the simple setup, basic controls, and easy operation without needing smart features.
  • 5.0
    3 reviews strong consensus
    pollen removal: 5.0, 3 reviews, strong consensus
    Pollen sufferers were among the happiest buyers, with reports of fewer symptoms and cleaner-feeling air during pollen-heavy seasons.
  • 5.0
    3 reviews strong consensus
    smoke removal: 5.0, 3 reviews, strong consensus
    Smoke reduction is praised when the purifier is used in apartments or rooms exposed to nearby smokers. Owners who mentioned smoke often noticed the smell or haze drop after running it.
  • 4.0
    12 reviews moderate consensus
    room coverage: 4.0, 12 reviews, moderate consensus
    Room coverage is best received in bedrooms, offices, bathrooms, and other small spaces. Larger rooms can still improve, but buyers repeatedly warn it is not a whole-house machine.
  • 4.5
    4 reviews strong consensus
    size and footprint: 4.5, 4 reviews, strong consensus
    The compact footprint suits desks, nightstands, bedrooms, offices, and counters. Some still found it a little bigger than expected or too limited for larger rooms.
  • 4.4
    4 reviews strong consensus
    maintenance ease: 4.4, 4 reviews, strong consensus
    Maintenance is generally straightforward: owners mention rinsing, vacuuming, or cleaning the foam filter without much fuss.
  • 3.8
    12 reviews low consensus
    durability: 3.8, 12 reviews, low consensus
    Durability is sharply split between long-running older units and newer failures. Some lasted years of constant use, while many recent units died within months or under a year.
  • 3.9
    6 reviews low consensus
    odor reduction: 3.9, 6 reviews, low consensus
    Odor control is mixed. Some buyers say it freshens rooms, bathrooms, smoke, pet spaces, and diapers, while others say cooking odors or powdery filter smells linger.
  • 4.3
    3 reviews low consensus
    portability: 4.3, 3 reviews, low consensus
    Portability is a small positive. Owners liked that the unit is light enough to move between rooms, though another Holmes model was preferred for having a handle.
  • 4.3
    3 reviews strong consensus
    true HEPA filter: 4.3, 3 reviews, strong consensus
    True HEPA filtration is a selling point for many buyers, who see it as a step above HEPA-type filters. Replacement needs and airflow tradeoffs still come up.
  • 4.5
    2 reviews limited evidence
    particle removal effectiveness: 4.5, 2 reviews, limited evidence
    Particle capture gets favorable notes from owners who saw fuzz or fine particles collecting in the filter. The strongest praise came from wildfire and visible-filter-use situations.
  • 3.9
    4 reviews moderate consensus
    ionization feature: 3.9, 4 reviews, moderate consensus
    The ionizer draws mixed reactions. Some say it improves results or reduces static, while others dislike limited coverage or avoid it because of ozone concerns.
  • 4.0
    3 reviews strong consensus
    washable pre-filter: 4.0, 3 reviews, strong consensus
    The washable pre-filter is a practical plus for several buyers because it cuts down on maintenance waste and may help the main filter last longer.
  • 4.3
    2 reviews limited evidence
    customer support: 4.3, 2 reviews, limited evidence
    Customer support gets limited but favorable feedback, with Holmes replacing failed units and one owner praising prompt service.
  • 4.5
    1 review
    mold spore reduction: 4.5, 1 review
    Mold-related comments are limited but positive, with one reviewer saying it helped with a possible mold-spore problem alongside pet dander.
  • 3.5
    3 reviews low consensus
    design and appearance: 3.5, 3 reviews, low consensus
    Appearance receives light but mixed feedback. One owner called it attractive, while another said the design looked cheap; a broken unit still got a nod for style.
  • 3.5
    3 reviews low consensus
    filter availability: 3.5, 3 reviews, low consensus
    Filter availability is inconsistent. A few owners liked the options or included filters, but one could not find the true HEPA replacement they wanted.
  • 3.5
    2 reviews limited evidence
    HEPA filtration: 3.5, 2 reviews, limited evidence
    The HEPA filter itself is generally trusted, though one owner disliked how the filter seated in the unit and worried about bypass leaks.

Cons

Sort
  • 1.2
    6 reviews strong consensus
    safety concerns: 1.2, 6 reviews, strong consensus
    Safety concerns are serious despite being less common than positive reviews. Multiple owners mention smoke, sparks, burning smells, or fear of fire.
  • 1.8
    16 reviews low consensus
    reliability: 1.8, 16 reviews, low consensus
    Reliability is the biggest risk in the reviews. Positive long-term stories exist, but failures of fans, motors, speeds, rattling, and total shutdowns appear repeatedly.
  • 1.8
    4 reviews strong consensus
    ozone-free operation: 1.8, 4 reviews, strong consensus
    Ionizer and ozone comfort is a concern for some owners. Several avoid the ionizer around asthma, pets, or babies because of ozone worries.
  • 1.7
    3 reviews strong consensus
    condition on arrival: 1.7, 3 reviews, strong consensus
    Condition on arrival is mixed, with a few reports of defective or possibly mishandled units right out of the box.
  • 2.2
    5 reviews low consensus
    air circulation: 2.2, 5 reviews, low consensus
    Airflow is one of the clearest tradeoffs. Some people liked the smoother breeze, but several complained that even the high setting moved very little air.
  • 2.3
    4 reviews low consensus
    initial chemical smell: 2.3, 4 reviews, low consensus
    Smell on startup or failure is a concern in a minority of reviews. Reports range from a mild new-unit smell to burning-plastic or electrical odors.
  • 2.0
    1 review
    activated carbon filter: 2.0, 1 review
    The carbon filter disappointed one reviewer, who expected a denser odor layer and described it as more like a thin scrubbing pad.
  • 2.8
    6 reviews low consensus
    build quality: 2.8, 6 reviews, low consensus
    Build quality is uneven. Some units feel reasonably made or high quality, while complaints mention cheap plastic, poor fit, and quality dropping versus older Holmes models.
  • 2.7
    3 reviews low consensus
    replacement experience: 2.7, 3 reviews, low consensus
    Replacement experiences range from helpful to frustrating. Some owners received replacements, while others could not get one or found returns too expensive.
  • 2.9
    7 reviews low consensus
    fan speed options: 2.9, 7 reviews, low consensus
    The three-speed control is simple and useful when it works, but several owners report awkward gaps between speeds or lower settings failing.
  • 3.1
    45 reviews low consensus
    noise level: 3.1, 45 reviews, low consensus
    Noise depends heavily on speed and unit quality. Low and medium often work as soft white noise, while high speed, rattles, squeals, and failing motors are repeated complaints.
  • 3.3
    4 reviews low consensus
    filter life: 3.3, 4 reviews, low consensus
    Filter life varies a lot by use. Some owners stretch filters for a year, while allergy, pet, smoke, and dust-heavy homes report more frequent changes.
  • 3.2
    8 reviews low consensus
    filter replacement cost: 3.2, 8 reviews, low consensus
    Replacement-filter cost is a recurring caveat. Some shoppers find the filters reasonable or offset by generics, while others say they approach the price of the purifier.